Hu-manure?!

“Night soil”, “sewage sludge”, and “wastewater” (the refined form), are just a few of the names that have been given to biosolids; human waste used as sustainable agricultural fertilizer. Biosolids are "mostly organic solids resulting from the treatment of wastewater that have undergone additional treatment" according to the EPA(Environmental Protection Agency). To ensure biosolids are recyclable, they are continuously  monitored by Wastewater treatment facilities. In the following course of action, wastewater is cleaned chemically and biologically. The most important step of wastewater sanitation is the removal of pathogens (disease- causing organisms). These viruses and parasites can be a significant threat to the health of humans. Like most new innovations in our society, there are risks, but they are greatly outweighed by the advantages of biosolids. 

A typical wastewater treatment facility

The processes of a wastewater treatment facility

The concept of "biosolids" is relatively new to the western hemisphere, but has been a common practice in other parts of the world for thousands of years. In the Tai Lake Region of China, biosolids were collected in ceramic tanks, concrete pits, or even buckets located near the toilets. Prior to the commencement of chemical fertilizers, farmers would use biosolids for nearly all crops, including wheat and rice. Today, nearly 200 million farmers in China, India, Vietnam, sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America use biosolids to harvest grains and vegetables. In 2009 alone, fertilizer prices jumped almost 50 percent per metric ton, so farmers in developing countries maintain their businesses by using wastewater. 

A Chinese farmer using biosolids as fertilizer

Wastewater practices are rarely used in North America because farmers have access to treated water and expensive chemical fertilizers. Also, our society scoffs at the idea of being too "uncivilized". Biosolids are packed with nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, zinc, iron, as well as low concentrations of other plant nutrients. The soil in western countries has been known to be micro-nutrient deficient, and so the rich organic matter in biosolids can improve its overall quality. Recycling waste is a great solution to the byproduct of our society. When sewage is turned into an almost free fertilizer, the result is cleaner water bodies and more room in landfills. A study created by Colorado State University agronomists showed that biosolids constantly applied to wheat crops produced higher amounts of protein, thus creating larger economic returns compared to crops fertilized with the commercial fertilizer. 

An example of a nutrient deficient plant and how the plant is affected

Even though the use of biosolids is regulated by the EPA law 503 (Standards for the use or disposal of Sewage Sludge), not everyone is too fond of the idea. Biosolids aren't overly used in places such as Canada or the United States of America, but people living in close proximity to these activities are concerned.  In Colbert County, Alabama, Legislators are trying to stop the use of biosolids. There is a theory that anything that goes down a toilet (bleach, motor oil, etc.) can still be concentrated in biosolids, for they are not tested for contaminants after they leave the wastewater treatment pipes. Researchers have also tried to link the increase of illnesses to biosolids being used more frequently. In the study, residents living near biosolid fertilized land experienced burning eyes, skin rashes, and other ailments.  The fact of the matter is, research on biosolids is very limited, so it has hard to tell if the negative effects supposedly caused by biosolids are accurate or coincidences. 

A test on the concentration levels of cadium in biosolids

There is always a wrong way and a right way to go about a new advance. For example, if chicken is cooked the wrong way, the result can be salmonella. This doesn't mean that all chicken is bad. The same theory can be applied to biosolids used as fertilizers. Biosolids will be harmful if they are not provided in a responsible manner. For the most part, biosolids have been a great, cost effective substitution for harsh chemicals. If it has been used for thousands of years, why shouldn't we use it now? 

Biosolids for all!

References: 
1) http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/water.nsf/NPDES+Permits/Sewage+S825/$FILE/503-032007.pdf
2) http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/08/080821-human-waste.html
3) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/07/020730075144.htm
4) http://www.agroecology.org/Case%20Studies/nightsoil.html
5) http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/biosolids-and-human-health/
6) http://www.sencer.net/Outreach/pdfs/DCSymposium08/Posters/LUbiosolids.pdf
7) http://www.epa.gov/region8/water/biosolids/
8) http://www.biosolids.com/benefits.html
9) http://www.saltspringnews.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=19167

Blogs I commented on:
1) http://maeisdabomb.blogspot.com/
2) http://claudia-d-123.blogspot.com/

More Life From More Technology

Throughout history, a number of great innovators have worked endlessly to fight pain and suffering, combat disease, and prolong life through the creation of new medical technologies. The technology that has been developed over the past century has now become a staple part of our society. It is very unusual to see a doctor without a stethoscope because the world we live in today has undergone a dramatic change in terms of various technologies. Today, we can find sphygmomanometers in nearly every drugstore and we take technologies such as x-rays and microscopes for granted because we encounter them constantly. These technologies are important in understanding a variety of internal body systems. Without them, our medical experts wouldn’t be able to perform their everyday tasks, essential for the health of all patients.

A woman taking her blood pressure... in a drug store!

Before the 19^th century, doctors typically used manual techniques to diagnose their patients. The invention of the Hutchinson’s device or the spirometer kicked the new wave of healthcare into gear. It was used to measure the amount of air passing through the lungs. For something so seemingly simple, it can provide a lot of information of a patient’s condition, and help diagnose respiratory diseases. After this, physicians spent more time on the improvement of technological devices to understand the body without having to perform surgery. This period pushed for the creation of thermometers, stethoscopes, ophthalmoscopes, and x-ray. With these medical devices, doctors were able to see and hear internal body parts such as lungs, and hearts. Since the early 20^th century, an array of new medical technologies has emerged, changing the face of healthcare forever.

A group of doctors in the 1800s.

A recent technological innovation in healthcare is the Cardiac Catheterization, a method of diagnosing coronary distress. The pioneer of this procedure was Claude Bernard, for in 1844 he injected a needle using a mercury thermometer into the heart of a horse to measure its temperature.  For the next forty years he used similar techniques to find the horse’s blood and soon, others followed in Bernard’s footsteps to increase the experiment’s efficiency. In modern procedures, a small thin tube (catheter) is passed into a leg vein as a dye travels through the catheter and to the heart, shown by an x-ray. The dye reveals areas of blockage in the heart.  . A doctor performing this procedure can get a much better understanding of the patient’s problem without performing surgery.

The internal flow of cardiac catheterization throughout the body

Heart conditions can also be diagnosed by electrocardiographs (ECG), used to map electrical fields throughout the heart. ECGs are very common are commonly seen in television or in movies. Without an ECG, a doctor would have a very difficult time accurately assessing one’s heartbeat. Canadian doctors have researched the heart to try and create new innovations such as the artificial heart, as well. An Ottawa doctor, Tofy Mussivand, has looked over the process of creating an artificial heart for patients with heart disease. Dr. Mussivand’s dream can give a good idea of how much technology has truly changed.

The results of a Electrocardiograph

Even though there are critics of technology in the healthcare industry (stating it is the reason for rising medical costs), there is no denying that is has let us achieve much more than expected. Technology not only gives us a deeper understanding of the human anatomy, but has added more years to live for the entire population. 

Who knows what the future has in store for medical technology!

References

http://blog.ictforhealth.com/2009/10/evolution-of-medical-technology/

http://www.ehow.com/about_4672066_medical-technology.html

http://healthandkarma.blogspot.com/2010/12/evolution-of-medical-technology-glimpse.html

http://timerime.com/en/timeline/300535/Evolution+of+Medical+Technology/

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003337.htmhttp://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/dci/Diseases/cath/cath_what.html

       Commented on:

       1) http://claudia-d-123.blogspot.com/ 

       2) http://adorablogs.blogspot.com/

       

B

Industrial vs. Sustainable Agriculture

In recent decades, we have seen the tremendous growth of the agricultural industry. Farms are now able to produce crops and livestock in extremeley efficient amounts of time due to the improvement in technology. This method has come to be known as industrial agriculture. In this form of farming, human labour is substituted by machinery for quick results. The number of animals confined to one area is usually much bigger than that of a regular farm because the goal of industrial farming is to recieve more benefits for less labour. Large amounts of water, fossil fuels, and pesticides are needed for this type of farming also. Industrial agriculture can be fast and benefit farmers but it can also put a great deal of stress on the environment. At the end of the day, there are usually more cons than pros when dealing with industrial agriculture.

Overcrowded cows on an industrial farm

Industrial agriculture uses vasts amounts of water, fossil fuels and topsoil at rapid rates, making it very unsustainable. These practices are generaly responsible for many environmental problems including topsoil erosion, soil depletion, and reduction of diversity  Industrial agriculture has also been named one of the leading factors of water pollution in the United States. The majority of the water pollution from these types of farms is the result of the wrongful storage of animal waste. Waste tank or "lagoons" are able to hold millions of gallons of manure and urine . Although this is the easiest method for collecting waste, the consequences of collecting incorrectly can be horrible. These lagoons are prone to leakage, and storms can cause them to errupt easily. Raw manure can be up to 160 times more toxic than municipal waste, and so the effects can be devestating on waterways. Harmful bacteria are able to find their way into water supplies which we need to use everyday.



Harmful "lagoons" holding livestock waste

Industrial agriculture not only harms humans, but the animals involved in the procedures as well. Livestock, mainly cows, pigs, and chickens, are concentrated in unreasonably small areas. These areas are usually filthy and so animals are more susceptible to common diseases such as mad cow. In most cases, farmers are more concerned with how much weight their livestock gain rather than their overall health. Artificial health methods are usually distributed to maintain the health of the animals.

Vast amounts of pigs cramped in cages

If one were to look at the pros and cons of industrial agriculture and compare the two, the cons would most defintley be victorious. Yet, we still rely on this harmful type of agriculture when we are able to use other options such as sustainable agriculture, to help both our environment and the animals that are being put under unneccasry stress for our greed.

Sustainable agriculture is healthy for both animals and consumers, benefits farmers, and respects animals and doesn't harm the environment. What is taken out of the environment is put back in through conservation and preservation . Resources such as water and soil can be replenished for the use of future generations. Sustainable agriculture also uses less pesticides and less chemicals. To not use sustainable agricultural methods would be a slap in the face, because compared to industrial agriculture, there are no disadvantages. This method of farming  can be the new normal for all developed countries, and this can end up benefiting the entire world.

The dream of the future!

References:

http://www.sustainabletable.org/intro/comparison/

http://www.acresusa.com/toolbox/reprints/Indust%20vs%20sustain_dec03.pdf

http://scienceblogs.com/worldsfair/2009/05/industrial_agriculture_v_susta.php

http://www.indigodev.com/Susagr.html

http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.02110445

http://www.economywatch.com/agriculture/types/industrial.html

Blogs I commented on:

1) http://maeisdabomb.blogspot.com/
2)http://bioblog-erica.blogspot.com/